Ban nuclear?

[lfsmarineguy]

Why does Nobel keep coming up as the "inventor" of explosives? What he invented was the first safe and manageable explosive, TNT. Explosives were around long before Nobel walked the earth, he just refined them.

Banning nuclear isn't a feasible option. Do you honestly believe that just because we ban it's use that all the other countries will follow? Or do you think it's more likely that at least a few will maintain their programs and pose a threat to those of us that were stupid enough to follow the ban? Unfortunately, in the world today we have created a situation of mutually assured destruction, which is why the world powers and those that hope to be world powers, maintain a nuclear arsenal. It makes sure that if anyone else considers attacking a nuclear equipped country that they have to be willing to suffer massive losses as well. It keeps everyone as honest as can be expected. You can compare this to gun control since the only people effected by gun control are those that legally obtain their fire arms and obey the law. Criminals buy illegal weapons and don't register them so laws don't directly impact their ownership. There will be countries (and there already have been) that don't follow the rules set by others in regard to nuclear technology. If you think that because we ban it they are just going to wake up one day and say "Hey you know the US is right, this stuff is dangerous. We have really been A-holes about this. We never should have gotten involved with this in the first place. Lets start breaking down our systems and just move on.". You're out of your mind.

 

[NYPDFrogman]

it shouldn't be banned but we should learn from incidents like this.
development and implementation should be determined by the engineers, scientists and experts not poloticians with agendas:shhh:

 

[NYPDFrogman]

I wouldn't want this windmill in my backyard either
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jADMIeEHadU

clean up would be much easier than a melt down

 

[Chiefmcfuz]

does it make your corals glow with out the lights being on?

No just me lol

 

[NYPDFrogman]

No just me lol

damm how cool would that be than you can sell nuclear zoas for 700 bucks a polyp!

 

[lfsmarineguy]

It's where Chief gets his evil powers of moderation from :duh:.

 

[Aqua Pro Builder]

Why does Nobel keep coming up as the "inventor" of explosives? What he invented was the first safe and manageable explosive, TNT. Explosives were around long before Nobel walked the earth, he just refined them.

It's easy to remember for the sake of conversation. Many inventors are the real inventors and just for the sake of conversation man in the street like to use.

Banning nuclear isn't a feasible option. Do you honestly believe that just because we ban it's use that all the other countries will follow? Or do you think it's more likely that at least a few will maintain their programs and pose a threat to those of us that were stupid enough to follow the ban? Unfortunately, in the world today we have created a situation of mutually assured destruction, which is why the world powers and those that hope to be world powers, maintain a nuclear arsenal. It makes sure that if anyone else considers attacking a nuclear equipped country that they have to be willing to suffer massive losses as well. It keeps everyone as honest as can be expected. You can compare this to gun control since the only people effected by gun control are those that legally obtain their fire arms and obey the law. Criminals buy illegal weapons and don't register them so laws don't directly impact their ownership. There will be countries (and there already have been) that don't follow the rules set by others in regard to nuclear technology. If you think that because we ban it they are just going to wake up one day and say "Hey you know the US is right, this stuff is dangerous. We have really been A-holes about this. We never should have gotten involved with this in the first place. Lets start breaking down our systems and just move on.". You're out of your mind.

Honestly, I don't think banning is feasible either and I myself follow the same line of thinking with you in this topic.

 

[Aqua Pro Builder]

it shouldn't be banned but we should learn from incidents like this.
development and implementation should be determined by the engineers, scientists and experts not poloticians with agendas:shhh:

That's exactly what we should be thinking instead of claiming they are not dangerous.

 

[Aqua Pro Builder]

... Although there are clearly dangers of them, but if you're scared about the dangers of technology, you'd still be in the stone age.

My point is the potential danger of this technology is a QUICK and MASSIVE devastation. Unlike many other technologies, we have the luxury to reverse them but when nuclear technology is everywhere, miss use or miss handling of them could be a quick and sudden extinction of man kind. I do feel that the deployment of them is much faster than our overseeing ability ATM. I think the safety of them are actually OVERLOOKED.

I am not afraid of technology at all. I will be much more careful than the the current and past scientists approaching technology that are capable of MASS DESTRUCTION.

... design safer cars, and build technology which polllutes the environment less.

That's the point!

 

[DJYoshi]

:wow:
:tired:

Nuclear energy is not the issue here. It is clean and efficient. The issue here is that those plants got hit with the most severe natural disaster in history. Nothing would have handled that as well as nuclear energy. Windmills and solar panels would have been washed away. Oil and coal would have been washed away as well. Natural gas would have ignited and created more of a problem. So what's your backup plan.

My father helped to plan and build their company's 1st plant...but after that they didn't use a company to plan or build it..... they just took older plans and went from there.... I wonder if that information will come out.

 

[beerfish]

I am not afraid of technology at all. I will be much more careful than the the current and past scientists approaching technology that are capable of MASS DESTRUCTION.

You have to weigh things. Sure mass destruction is possible, but look at the benefits.

Let's take something close to home...
http://texyt.com/bright+blue+leds+annoyance+health+risks

Should we ban blue LEDs because of the reasons in the article? Or do the benefits outweigh the negatives?

 

[Aqua Pro Builder]

You have to weigh things. Sure mass destruction is possible, but look at the benefits.

Let's take something close to home...
http://texyt.com/bright+blue+leds+annoyance+health+risks

Should we ban blue LEDs because of the reasons in the article? Or do the benefits outweigh the negatives?

I actually is working in a project with a doctor relating to this part of the Blue LED's effect.

"In summary, when melatonin levels in your body are high, you sleep; when they are low, you wake up. Blue light appears to be a kind of natural alarm clock, which wakes animals as the sky becomes blue after sunrise. Only a fairly narrow band of frequencies centered around 'pure' blue has this strong impact on melatonin."

The general consensus from the medical industry, as of right now, is that blue LED is not dangerous.

 

[Aqua Pro Builder]

My father helped to plan and build their company's 1st plant...but after that they didn't use a company to plan or build it..... they just took older plans and went from there.... I wonder if that information will come out.

I think the troubled reactors are GE built and there are 23/24 of them in the States too.

 

[beerfish]

The general consensus from the medical industry, as of right now, is that blue LED is not dangerous.

What was the general consensus about nuclear power when it first showed up?

Just playing devil's advocate, and trying to point out that the benefits often outweigh the risks.

 

[Aqua Pro Builder]

What was the general consensus about nuclear power when it first showed up?

Just playing devil's advocate, and trying to point out that the benefits often outweigh the risks.

hehe, that's why I said, "as of right now" in my statement-I try to be at least cautious.

I am not sure about the ones first introduced in US and what general consensus were. But as for the one built near Hong Kong, I think most Hong Kong citizens felt it is dangerous even though, ironically, as of today, people in Hong Kong are still using cheap electricity from it.

 

[FocusReefing]

Ok there are a lot of potential hazardous products on the market. Cigarettes being the most obvious to me. But it's rediculous to compare nuclear power production to cigarettes. And say, " they sell cigarettes so why ban nuclear power?"... Really? Call me left wing but I don't support nuclear power in the least. An while I do realize it's not something that can be ended over night. I think we all have a responsibility to apply pressure to the powers that be and consider halting production of new power plants. Might just be a pipe dream but I feel money & time used to develop new reactors could be easily used to further the science & development of a true "clean" energy source. Especially when it's been around for years. But like gas, they don't want to reinvent the wheel. They rather just make a buck now, a let someone else worry about the mess later. Its just ignorance to say, "I like nuclear power let's build more". Come on... No one expects companies to just say sorry and agree. But the more we support it the better off they are. Don't just accept nuclear power as the future. We need to strive for better!

 

[Imbarrie]

Right now, in 2011, the options of large scale power generation are very limited. Its basically nuclear or coal/fossil fuel powered generation.
How many semi-governmental agencies are working with countries to limit the effects of coal or other fossil fuels? None.

Comparing the effects of nuclear and fossil fuels and including all aspects from manufacture. All the nuclear power generated so far, not including weapons discharges, has not had the same impact on people and on the environment as king coal.
More people die mining coal in China every ten years than all the people tied to nuclear energy production combined throughout history. It is currently affecting weather on a global scale. Its use is directly tied to asthma, bronchitis, cancer and its disposal is largely unregulated.

If anything ban coal and regulate nuclear. I think you are more concerned with the potential of nuclear, but fail to realize the affects of the alternatives.

 

[Aqua Pro Builder]

I think you are more concerned with the potential of nuclear, but fail to realize the affects of the alternatives.

If this is directing to me, I think your assumption is wrong! I did not fail to realize the affects of the alternatives. I actively protest about those too about their health effects.

To think logically and try to find answers for the posted questions, we should follow the format a formal debate-start with one topic and stop with one topic. Then, we go on a next topic which may or may not be related. "Alternatives", will be our next week's time killer. :lol2:

 

[DHaut]

I think we need more reactors in NYC!

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010...er-builds-nuclear-reactor-brooklyn-warehouse/

 

[Wes]

Nuclear power remains the cleanest most efficient way of making electricity.

WAY more people have died in coal mines than nuclear accidents. Think of all that carbon waste going right into the atmosphere.

Mining for rare earth metals that are needed for solar panels is a very nasty business.

Processing Nickel an Lithium to make batteries? Thank God they don't do it anywhere near where I live.

Natural Gas mining? Ask the people in PA who can light their tap water on fire.